Activism Discussion: US Responsible For 9/11 ?

US Responsible For 9/11 ?
Posts: 14

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

VTR
2008-06-03 10:32:23 EST
US responsible for 9/11 ?
By Gideon Polya


Swiss Scientists Doubt Bush Official Version
http://mwcnews.net/content/view/22944&Itemid=1

Two Swiss scientists, Professors Daniele Ganser and Albert A. Stahel of the University of
Zurich, reported in the largest Swiss newspaper, "Blick", have seriously questioned the
"official Bush version" of what happened on 9/11 (see: - "Je mehr wir forschen, desto mehr
zweifeln wir".

Of course Scholars for 9/11 and many other rational, eminent and technically expert people also
have profound scepticism about the Bush version. Indeed the "penny has dropped" for even the
long-suffering American people aka "mushrooms" (kept in the dark and fed manure) – recent polls
indicate that one third of Americans believe that the US Government was involved (e.g. see:
"More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11
terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the
Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll".
Professor Ganser: "3,000 humans were sacrificed for strategic interests. The more we explore,
the more we doubt the Bush version. It is conceivable that the Bush government was responsible.
Bush has lied so much already! And we already know that the US government planned an operation
in 1962 that was approved by the Pentagon that would have sacrificed innocent US citizens for
the government's own interests …We only ask questions."

To quote Professors Ganser and Stahel on their 3 hypotheses: "There are three theories, which
we should treat equally:
1. "Surprise theory" - Bin Laden and Al Qaeda implemented the attacks.

2. "Let it happen on purpose" - The US Government knew the Al Qaeda plans and did not react in
order to legitimize a series of wars.

3. "Made it happen on purpose" - The attacks were actually planned and orchestrated by the
Pentagon and/or US secret services."

How do these 3 hypotheses about the 9/11 atrocity stack up?

#1. A former top German Government Minister Von Buelow suggests US was involved in 9/11 (see:
here) and a former Russian military and intelligence chief, former head of the Russian
military General Ivashov suggests that Western interests were behind 9/11.

These highly-placed European experts rejected "the men in caves" hypothesis as utterly
implausible because the 9/11 operation needed the resources of a major state intelligence
operation operating within the US. The only real candidates are accordingly the CIA and Israeli
Mossad.

#2. According to the New York Post quoting a 2007 poll, two thrids of Americans believe that
the US Government was passively complicit in the 9/11 atrocity and that the Bush Government
allowed 9/11 to happen (just as the US Government is now generally believed by most Japanese
scholars to have known about the impending Pearl Harbor attack and deliberately allowed it to
happen).

Even US Establishment figure Al Gore blames the Bush Administration for 9/11. Thus former Vice
President Al Gore in his recent book "The Assault on Reason" (Chapter 6, National Insecurity,
pp178-179), while dismissing the widely-held hypothesis of deliberate passive complicity of the
Bush Administration in 9/11, condemns the Bush Administration for effective passive complicity
in the 9/11 atrocity i.e. they let it happen, just as a fore-warned US Administration permitted
the Pearl Harbor attack to happen in 1941:
"Their behaviour, in my opinion, was reckless, but the explanation for it lies in hubris, not
in some bizarre conspiracy theory …These affirmative and repeated refusals to listen to clear
warnings [prior to 9/11] constitute behaviour that goes beyond simple negligence. At a minimum,
it represents a reckless disregard for the safety of the American people."

#3. Former 7-year president of Italy, law professor, senator for life, Western "Gladio"
terrorist group intimate and Western intelligence intimate Francesco Cossigo, in an interview
with one of Italy's top newspapers, Corriere della Sera, in November 2007, declared that the
CIA and Israeli Mossad were responsible for 9/11; that they had done it to further US and
Zionist interests; and that major Western intelligence agencies were aware of this (see MWC News).

Of course in relation to ALL three hypotheses, "Al Qaeda" and their Islamist Mujahadeen
associates were funded, supported and backed by the US and its Saudi surrogates for a dozen
years in the 1980s in Afghanistan and up to the middle 1990s in the Balkans (see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda ). Indeed, given the enormous strategic and political
benefits to the American Empire and Apartheid Israel from Muslim-origin non-state terrorism it
is highly likely that such terrorists are still variously supported by US or Israeli state
terrorists throughout the world. Thus the Gladio terrorist organization with which Francesco
Cossiga was linked performed terrorist outrages for which "state enemies" such as Communists
would be held responsible. Indeed in Philip Agee's "Inside the Company. CIA Diary" (Penguin,
London, 1975) the author describes how his CIA colleagues ran a terrorist group in Ecuador in
the 1970s who went around bombing Catholic Churches so that the Communists or Socialists would
be blamed. Such state-sanctioned atrocities are clearly being conducted in a huge scale in
Occupied Iraq (see "US, UK and Israel behind Iraq Mosque Bombing?" on MWC News).

On whom would you place greater weight? One of the most eminent Western European statesmen and
former Italian president Francesco Cossiga? Top German and Russian intelligence intimates? The
Scholars for 9/11 and other decent citizens attempting to address the 9/11 atrocity
scientifically? Or the Bush Administration that told 935 lies about Iraq between 9/11 and the
invasion of Iraq (as reported by conservative media).

In assessing the 3 hypotheses of Professors Ganser and Stahel one should also consider the
"Means, Opportunity and Motive" – the intelligence services of the US and its surrogate Israel
certainly had the technical Means; they had the Opportunity (through being there and through
the well-documented and notoriously comprehensive "switching off" of US air and intelligence
defences); and they had the Motive (the security of Israel as a violent, anti-Arab
anti-Semitic, imperialist, colonialist , anti-peace, rogue state increased with the devastation
and massive depopulation of Occupied Iraq in an ongoing Iraqi Genocide; Bush America expanded a
huge US- or US-surrogate-occupied Empire stretching – with several gaps – from Occupied Somalia
to Occupied Afghanistan and US-bombed Waziristan in Pakistan).

We are still awaiting a proper judicial investigation of who did 9/11 – with hypothesis #3 of
direct US and Israeli involvement the most compelling on present evidence. While we still don't
know for sure who murdered 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11 we do know who is responsible for
the carnage of the Bush War on Terror (in horrible reality a War on Arab, Muslim, Asian and
non-European Women and Children) – in the Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories alone
post-invasion excess deaths total 2 million and 3-7 million, respectively; post-invasion
under-5 infant deaths total 0.6 million and 2.3 million, respectively; and refugees total 4.5
million and 4 million, respectively (see MWC News).

However the domestic cost in the complicit Western Murdochracies is measured in money (e.g. the
$3.5 trillion accrual cost to the US of the War on Terror that has "bankrupted" the US
according to 2001 Economics Nobel Laureate Professor Joseph Stiglitz); the human cost of
domestic excess deaths due to warped administration priorities (e.g. 160,000 under-5 year old
American infants have died avoidably because of Bush war priorities); and immense civil rights
and human rights abuses (the US Patriot Act and related Nazi-style "anti-Terrorism" laws in
other Western Murdochracies).

What can Americans, Australians, Canadians, Britishers and indeed the citizens of other
complicit Western Murdochracies do about do about the racist Zionist and Bush-ite trashing of
our wealth, our health, our liberties, our institutions and our very reputations?

Jewish-American investor, philanthropist, and Holocaust survivor George Soros has demanded the
"de-Nazification" of Bush America (see: MWC News). However America and the other Western
Murdochracies must also remove the lying, traitorous, racist, anti-Arab anti-Semitic Zionists
from their current domination of Western political life with their obscenely false "terror
hysteria" (see MWC News) just as weight of considered public opinion has removed other racist,
Nazi-style fanatics such as the Nazis, neo-Nazis and the KKK from Western public life.

The likelihood that the Zionists and Bush administeration were actually responsible for the
execution of the 9/11 atrocity (3,000 deaths) in addition to their clear involvement in its
horrendous aftermath (up to 9 million post-invasion violent and non-violent excess deaths in
the Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories, the devastation of Muslim countries from Occupied
Somalia to Waziristan in Pakistan and the moral and financial bankruptcy of America) should
give added urgency to the need for scrupulously human rights-observant, judicial cleansing of
the Western democracies from the lying, racist and traitorous Zionist and Bush terrorists and
mass murderers.

Dr Gideon Polya, MWC News Chief political editor, published some 130 works in a 4 decade
scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text "Biochemical Targets of
Plant Bioactive Compounds" (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003), and is
currently writing a book on global mortality ---

http://mwcnews.net/content/view/22944&Itemid=1

O*@real.com
2008-06-04 11:39:05 EST
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:32:23 -0500, VTR <vexjorge@gmx.us>
wrote:

>US responsible for 9/11 ?
>By Gideon Polya
>
>
>Swiss Scientists Doubt Bush Official Version
>http://mwcnews.net/content/view/22944&Itemid=1
>
>Two Swiss scientists, Professors Daniele Ganser and Albert A. Stahel of the University of
>Zurich, reported in the largest Swiss newspaper, "Blick", have seriously questioned the
>"official Bush version" of what happened on 9/11 (see: - "Je mehr wir forschen, desto mehr
>zweifeln wir".
>
>Of course Scholars for 9/11 and many other rational, eminent and technically expert people also
>have profound scepticism about the Bush version. Indeed the "penny has dropped" for even the
>long-suffering American people aka "mushrooms" (kept in the dark and fed manure) – recent polls
>indicate that one third of Americans believe that the US Government was involved (e.g. see:
>"More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11
>terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the
>Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll".
>Professor Ganser: "3,000 humans were sacrificed for strategic interests. The more we explore,
>the more we doubt the Bush version. It is conceivable that the Bush government was responsible.
>Bush has lied so much already! And we already know that the US government planned an operation
>in 1962 that was approved by the Pentagon that would have sacrificed innocent US citizens for
>the government's own interests …We only ask questions."
>

There have elapsed many years since the
attacks occured, thus there is much "new
evidence", "uncovered". This has to be
suspect!

Relying only upon what was released back
then, contemporary with the attacks, we note
that neither fireball was distorted by falling
debris of plane parts that HAD to be there
if the damage was done by planes and not
merely explosives inside the buildings.

How could a plane go through the south tower,
enter through the south side and exit through
the east side, and not push furniture and other
debris -- with a higher "terminal velocity" than
buring fuel falling through the air -- out the exit
hole? Any such solid debris would, necessarily
fall faster than the burning fuel, and thus be
highly visible as it trailed smoke and flames behind it.

I remember watching that fireball emerge from the
east side of the south tower, waiting for the debris
to come falling through the fireball, it never did!
While on the north tower, the metal is bent mysteriously
outwards, as if by an explosive force from inside the
building. Fragile wing parts somehow are to have
magically peirced the outter wall and entered the
building, instead of sheering off and falling away!

Add pilots unable to fly the planes the way they
were flown! Calls that could not be made, and
films that do not reconcile with the normal reflexive
actions that a person, cameraman or otherwise,
would normally take. That there were no planes
is more than just speculation, it is something that
the evidence suggests more strongly than that there
were any planes! That means the conspiracy
was of an enemy within, and not an enemy without!

SHOOTER586
2008-06-04 12:43:34 EST
On Jun 4, 8:39 am, Ob...@real.com wrote:

>  There have elapsed many years since the
> attacks occured,  thus there is much "new
> evidence",  "uncovered".   This has to be
> suspect!  

Actually, not much more factual information has come out. Mostly
opinions from non-experts.

> Relying only upon what was released back
> then,  contemporary with the attacks,  we note
> that neither fireball was distorted by falling
> debris of plane parts that HAD to be there
> if the damage was done by planes and not
> merely explosives inside the buildings.

Looking at the fireballs, they looked just like they would based on
the information we have. Unless you have advanced training on such
things, you's be hard pressed to provide any clues to how they
appeared any different.

> How could a plane go through the south tower,
> enter through the south side and exit through
> the east side,  and not push furniture and other
> debris -- with a higher "terminal velocity" than
> buring fuel falling through the air -- out the exit
> hole?  Any such solid debris would,  necessarily
> fall faster than the burning fuel,  and thus be
> highly visible as it trailed smoke and flames behind it.

The size of teh debris would be too small to be visible from any of
teh camera angles. TRying to invent what it should ahve looked like is
impossible since you have no basis to which you can gain any opinion
from.

> I remember watching that fireball emerge from the
> east side of the south tower,  waiting for the debris
> to come falling through the fireball,  it never did!
> While on the north tower,  the metal is bent mysteriously
> outwards,  as if by an explosive force from inside the
> building.  Fragile wing parts somehow are to have
> magically peirced the outter wall and entered the
> building,  instead of sheering off and falling away!

You were waiting for debris to fall out the other side from a camera
shot that was miles away? How big did you think this debris was?

> Add pilots unable to fly the planes the way they
> were flown!  Calls that could not be made,  and
> films that do not reconcile with the normal reflexive
> actions that a person,  cameraman or otherwise,  
> would normally take.   That there were no planes
> is more than just speculation,  it is something that
> the evidence suggests more strongly than that there
> were any planes!   That means the conspiracy
> was of an enemy within,  and not an enemy without!- Hide quoted text -

You arguments seem based from a pre-established line of thought made
up by those that are trying to pass an opinion that cannot be
possible. So, by you parrtoting these talking points, it seems you
have spent very little time researching any new information and are
just repeating debunked points from those with ZERO experience in
sauch things.

Is it true that you have no experience, training or education on
video, piloting, building construction, engineering, scientific
studies, explosives, demolition, etc???

> - Show quoted text -


O*@real.com
2008-06-05 13:08:21 EST
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:43:34 -0700 (PDT), SHOOTER586
<*6@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jun 4, 8:39 am, Ob...@real.com wrote:
>
>>  There have elapsed many years since the
>> attacks occured,  thus there is much "new
>> evidence",  "uncovered".   This has to be
>> suspect!  
>
>Actually, not much more factual information has come out. Mostly
>opinions from non-experts.

There are loads of "mis-information" sites with
doctored photos and doctored docs out there now
that weren't around before. Every day brings a host
of new ones, attempting to provide new explainations
for things people have noticed that demand answers.

>> Relying only upon what was released back
>> then,  contemporary with the attacks,  we note
>> that neither fireball was distorted by falling
>> debris of plane parts that HAD to be there
>> if the damage was done by planes and not
>> merely explosives inside the buildings.
>
>Looking at the fireballs, they looked just like they would based on
>the information we have. Unless you have advanced training on such
>things, you's be hard pressed to provide any clues to how they
>appeared any different.

You need advanced training to know that if a
100 ton jet is moving behind it -- as it crashes
through two walls -- that there should be solid
debris, falling through it? C'mon!

>
>> How could a plane go through the south tower,
>> enter through the south side and exit through
>> the east side,  and not push furniture and other
>> debris -- with a higher "terminal velocity" than
>> buring fuel falling through the air -- out the exit
>> hole?  Any such solid debris would,  necessarily
>> fall faster than the burning fuel,  and thus be
>> highly visible as it trailed smoke and flames behind it.
>
>The size of teh debris would be too small to be visible from any of
>teh camera angles. TRying to invent what it should ahve looked like is
>impossible since you have no basis to which you can gain any opinion
>from.

Hmmm... Would you mind stating how you
know that the debris would be too small to be
visible from any of the camera angles? Pilots
have written that 100 ton crafts have large debris
parts when they crash. That is, jets break into
rather large peices when they crash.

Any large solid material, that left the building
behind the fireball, would have moved through
it, and in it's wake vortex, left an illuminated trail,
and/or a smoke trail as it sped ahead of the less
dense burning fuel. So, while you might not
catch something the size of a cigarette lighter,
something the size of a desk, a chair or a server
and/or server cabinets would certainly be highly visible.

There are photos of the towers erupting with the clouds
of pulverized concrete ejecting out, and you can see
many small objects ejecting from the building and you
can see the trails they pull along in their wake.

Guess you haven't looked at many of the 9-11 pictures
available. You should have a look before sprouting
your own dreamy guestimates of what was what.

>> I remember watching that fireball emerge from the
>> east side of the south tower,  waiting for the debris
>> to come falling through the fireball,  it never did!
>> While on the north tower,  the metal is bent mysteriously
>> outwards,  as if by an explosive force from inside the
>> building.  Fragile wing parts somehow are to have
>> magically peirced the outter wall and entered the
>> building,  instead of sheering off and falling away!
>
>You were waiting for debris to fall out the other side from a camera
>shot that was miles away? How big did you think this debris was?

The camera was not miles away! The camera was
approximately 900 to 1,000 feet away. Like I said,
you haven't seen many pictures of 9-11 events.
You need to go have a look at some before you try
to argue with people who have already looked.
(hint: Google is your friend)

>> Add pilots unable to fly the planes the way they
>> were flown!  Calls that could not be made,  and
>> films that do not reconcile with the normal reflexive
>> actions that a person,  cameraman or otherwise,  
>> would normally take.   That there were no planes
>> is more than just speculation,  it is something that
>> the evidence suggests more strongly than that there
>> were any planes!   That means the conspiracy
>> was of an enemy within,  and not an enemy without!- Hide quoted text -
>
>You arguments seem based from a pre-established line of thought made
>up by those that are trying to pass an opinion that cannot be
>possible. So, by you parrtoting these talking points, it seems you
>have spent very little time researching any new information and are
>just repeating debunked points from those with ZERO experience in
>sauch things.

You've already demonstrated your own ignorance!
Why do you insist on making it overly abundantly
clear to all that you know nothing whereof you speak?

>Is it true that you have no experience, training or education on
>video, piloting, building construction, engineering, scientific
>studies, explosives, demolition, etc???

>> - Show quoted text -

And that is one of the stupidest things ever written
about events that have been photographed, and those
photographs and videos have already been analysed
by experts. Are you trying to say that one needs a
colledge education and degrees to read... say a James
Bond novel? Or a Carl Sagan essay? Hmmmm....
You have a very strange view of how the world works.

Obwon

Iarnrod
2008-06-05 13:40:25 EST
O*.@real.com wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:43:34 -0700 (PDT), SHOOTER586
> <shooter586@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 4, 8:39�am, Ob...@real.com wrote:
> >
> >> �There have elapsed many years since the
> >> attacks occured, �thus there is much "new
> >> evidence", �"uncovered". � This has to be
> >> suspect! �
> >
> >Actually, not much more factual information has come out. Mostly
> >opinions from non-experts.
>
> There are loads of "mis-information" sites with
> doctored photos and doctored docs out there now
> that weren't around before.

Uh, that’s what Shooter just said. That not much more actual real
factual information has come out, contrary to your claim. Now you’re
agreeing with it.

The sites you reference that have come out with “misinformation” and
doctored photos and docs are the kooker sites.

> Every day brings a host
> of new ones, attempting to provide new explainations
> for things people have noticed that demand answers.

Answers haven’t changed; questions have been answered; kooks are
merely rejecting true answers and demanding false ones to fit their
preconceived biases.

> >> Relying only upon what was released back
> >> then, �contemporary with the attacks, �we note
> >> that neither fireball was distorted by falling
> >> debris of plane parts that HAD to be there
> >> if the damage was done by planes and not
> >> merely explosives inside the buildings.
> >
> >Looking at the fireballs, they looked just like they would based on
> >the information we have. Unless you have advanced training on such
> >things, you's be hard pressed to provide any clues to how they
> >appeared any different.
>
> You need advanced training to know that if a
> 100 ton jet is moving behind it -- as it crashes
> through two walls -- that there should be solid
> debris, falling through it? C'mon!

There was, is what he just said to you. I see solid debris all over
the place. You were expecting whole desks and copying machines to be
popping out the other side or something? Maybe this is your problem,
false expectations.

> >> How could a plane go through the south tower,
> >> enter through the south side and exit through
> >> the east side, �and not push furniture and other
> >> debris -- with a higher "terminal velocity" than
> >> buring fuel falling through the air -- out the exit
> >> hole? �Any such solid debris would, �necessarily
> >> fall faster than the burning fuel, �and thus be
> >> highly visible as it trailed smoke and flames behind it.
> >
> >The size of teh debris would be too small to be visible from any of
> >teh camera angles. TRying to invent what it should ahve looked like is
> >impossible since you have no basis to which you can gain any opinion
> >from.
>
> Hmmm... Would you mind stating how you
> know that the debris would be too small to be
> visible from any of the camera angles? Pilots
> have written that 100 ton crafts have large debris
> parts when they crash. That is, jets break into
> rather large peices when they crash.

And small ones too when they’re shredded by impacting a steel frame
building and everything inside it. Still, there was plenty of large
debris ejected and many photos of it have been posted. Pieces of
fuselage with window frames, jet engine parts, landing gear, and so
on…. What you’re asking to be shown has already been shown.

> Any large solid material, that left the building
> behind the fireball, would have moved through
> it, and in it's wake vortex, left an illuminated trail,
> and/or a smoke trail as it sped ahead of the less
> dense burning fuel.

And so it did. Why are you claiming not to see these things when they
are in the videos?

> So, while you might not
> catch something the size of a cigarette lighter,
> something the size of a desk, a chair or a server
> and/or server cabinets would certainly be highly visible.

Why do you think these things would have remained intact upon impact
and expulsion through the solid steel frame wall opposite the impact?
Under what basis do you thing an intact desk should have popped
unscathed through a steel frame skyscraper wall? Do you think the
world is like that magician guy who claims to pass through glass
windows?

Unreasonable premise.

> There are photos of the towers erupting with the clouds
> of pulverized concrete ejecting out,…

That is not the major component of the dust clouds.

> and you can see
> many small objects ejecting from the building and you
> can see the trails they pull along in their wake.
>
> Guess you haven't looked at many of the 9-11 pictures
> available. You should have a look before sprouting
> your own dreamy guestimates of what was what.

WTF are you even talking about? Debris clearly can be seen being
ejected in the WTC2 impact.

> >> I remember watching that fireball emerge from the
> >> east side of the south tower, �waiting for the debris
> >> to come falling through the fireball, �it never did!
> >> While on the north tower, �the metal is bent mysteriously
> >> outwards, �as if by an explosive force from inside the
> >> building. �Fragile wing parts somehow are to have
> >> magically peirced the outter wall and entered the
> >> building, �instead of sheering off and falling away!
> >
> >You were waiting for debris to fall out the other side from a camera
> >shot that was miles away? How big did you think this debris was?
>
> The camera was not miles away! The camera was
> approximately 900 to 1,000 feet away. Like I said,
> you haven't seen many pictures of 9-11 events.
> You need to go have a look at some before you try
> to argue with people who have already looked.
> (hint: Google is your friend)

Your premnise that debris cannot be seen is clearly false by the fact
that anyone looking at any of the videos can see it.

> >> Add pilots unable to fly the planes the way they
> >> were flown! �Calls that could not be made, �and
> >> films that do not reconcile with the normal reflexive
> >> actions that a person, �cameraman or otherwise, �
> >> would normally take. � That there were no planes
> >> is more than just speculation, �it is something that
> >> the evidence suggests more strongly than that there
> >> were any planes! � That means the conspiracy
> >> was of an enemy within, �and not an enemy without!- Hide quoted text -
> >
> >You arguments seem based from a pre-established line of thought made
> >up by those that are trying to pass an opinion that cannot be
> >possible. So, by you parrtoting these talking points, it seems you
> >have spent very little time researching any new information and are
> >just repeating debunked points from those with ZERO experience in
> >sauch things.
>
> You've already demonstrated your own ignorance!
> Why do you insist on making it overly abundantly
> clear to all that you know nothing whereof you speak?

Well, the fact is, he’s right and you’re wrong.

You are a no-planes kook and no-planes theory has been proven to be
physically impossible.

Planes hit the buildings. Your premises (Calls that could not be made?
WTF?? Pilots unable to flly the planes the way they were flown???
WTF??? Why would they be unable to fly into a buiding!!) are all
debunked kooker nonsense.

> >Is it true that you have no experience, training or education on
> >video, piloting, building construction, engineering, scientific
> >studies, explosives, demolition, etc???
>
> And that is one of the stupidest things ever written
> about events that have been photographed, and those
> photographs and videos have already been analysed
> by experts.

Showing what, in your estimation? I’ve not seen any analysis that
suggests anything amiss with the planes and the explosions and the
debris.

> Are you trying to say that one needs a
> colledge education and degrees to read... say a James
> Bond novel? Or a Carl Sagan essay? Hmmmm....
> You have a very strange view of how the world works.
>
> Obwon

That shoe fits you.

SHOOTER586
2008-06-05 17:06:10 EST
On Jun 5, 10:08 am, Ob...@real.com wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:43:34 -0700 (PDT), SHOOTER586
>
> <shooter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 4, 8:39 am, Ob...@real.com wrote:
>
> >>  There have elapsed many years since the
> >> attacks occured,  thus there is much "new
> >> evidence",  "uncovered".   This has to be
> >> suspect!  
>
> >Actually, not much more factual information has come out. Mostly
> >opinions from non-experts.
>
>   There are loads of "mis-information" sites with
> doctored photos and doctored docs out there now
> that weren't around before.  Every day brings a host
> of new ones,  attempting to provide new explainations
> for things people have noticed that demand answers.
>
> >> Relying only upon what was released back
> >> then,  contemporary with the attacks,  we note
> >> that neither fireball was distorted by falling
> >> debris of plane parts that HAD to be there
> >> if the damage was done by planes and not
> >> merely explosives inside the buildings.
>
> >Looking at the fireballs, they looked just like they would based on
> >the information we have. Unless you have advanced training on such
> >things, you's be hard pressed to provide any clues to how they
> >appeared any different.
>
> You need advanced training to know that if a
> 100 ton jet is moving behind it --  as it crashes
> through two walls --  that there should be solid
> debris, falling through it?   C'mon!  

Based on the previous claim, yes. Based onhow you worded it, no.

> >> How could a plane go through the south tower,
> >> enter through the south side and exit through
> >> the east side,  and not push furniture and other
> >> debris -- with a higher "terminal velocity" than
> >> buring fuel falling through the air -- out the exit
> >> hole?  Any such solid debris would,  necessarily
> >> fall faster than the burning fuel,  and thus be
> >> highly visible as it trailed smoke and flames behind it.
>
> >The size of teh debris would be too small to be visible from any of
> >teh camera angles. TRying to invent what it should ahve looked like is
> >impossible since you have no basis to which you can gain any opinion
> >from.
>
>   Hmmm...   Would you mind stating how you
> know that the debris would be too small to be
> visible from any of the camera angles?  Pilots
> have written that 100 ton crafts have large debris
> parts when they crash.  That is,  jets break into
> rather large peices when they crash.  

Simple resolution of the video. Can you tell me how many of these
pilots that have seen plane/building impacts to make such a statement?
Jets only break into large pieces on some crashes and cetainly not
all. I am not one to make assumptions or generalities on such things.

> Any large solid material,  that left the building
> behind the fireball,  would have moved through
> it,  and in it's wake vortex,  left an illuminated trail,
> and/or a smoke trail as it sped ahead of the less
> dense burning fuel.  So,  while you might not
> catch something the size of a cigarette lighter,
> something the size of a desk,  a chair or a server
> and/or server cabinets would certainly be highly visible.

Nope, small objects would not be seen at that distance. Just do a very
basic resolution calculation to prove this. The very same reason the
Hubble can't see the US flag left on the moon. (yes, we left a flag
there; yes and we really went there)

> There are photos of the towers erupting with the clouds
> of pulverized concrete ejecting out,  and you can see
> many small objects ejecting from the building and you
> can see the trails they pull along in their wake.

Your "pulverized" concrete were chunks weighing 100s fo lbs. You
cannot confuse a cloud of dust for seeing specific objects. Intersting
you use the word "pulverized". It is a canned term used by those
trying to understand the collapse without any knowldege of such
things.

> Guess you haven't looked at many of the 9-11 pictures
> available.  You should have a look before sprouting
> your own dreamy guestimates of what was what.

Actually, I have looked at both the limited pictures shown on CT
websites and the rest shown on regular mainstream websites. I suggest
you try break outside of the websites that limit you to a few slect
photos and look at a bigger variety. You may be amazed how much more
info is out there that isn't censored by CTists.

> >> I remember watching that fireball emerge from the
> >> east side of the south tower,  waiting for the debris
> >> to come falling through the fireball,  it never did!
> >> While on the north tower,  the metal is bent mysteriously
> >> outwards,  as if by an explosive force from inside the
> >> building.  Fragile wing parts somehow are to have
> >> magically peirced the outter wall and entered the
> >> building,  instead of sheering off and falling away!
>
> >You were waiting for debris to fall out the other side from a camera
> >shot that was miles away? How big did you think this debris was?
>
> The camera was not miles away!   The camera was
> approximately 900 to 1,000 feet away.  Like I said,
> you haven't seen many pictures of 9-11 events.
> You need to go have a look at some before you try
> to argue with people who have already looked.
> (hint: Google is your friend)

Like I said, do a very basic resolution calculation and tell me what
you get for 900 feet away. Keep in mind that the impacts were 700-900
up.

> >> Add pilots unable to fly the planes the way they
> >> were flown!  Calls that could not be made,  and
> >> films that do not reconcile with the normal reflexive
> >> actions that a person,  cameraman or otherwise,  
> >> would normally take.   That there were no planes
> >> is more than just speculation,  it is something that
> >> the evidence suggests more strongly than that there
> >> were any planes!   That means the conspiracy
> >> was of an enemy within,  and not an enemy without!- Hide quoted text -
>
> >You arguments seem based from a pre-established line of thought made
> >up by those that are trying to pass an opinion that cannot be
> >possible. So, by you parrtoting these talking points, it seems you
> >have spent very little time researching any new information and are
> >just repeating debunked points from those with ZERO experience in
> >sauch things.
>
>  You've already demonstrated your own ignorance!
> Why do you insist on making it overly abundantly
> clear to all that you know nothing whereof you speak?

Ad hominem. What did you benefit here?

> >Is it true that you have no experience, training or education on
> >video, piloting, building construction, engineering, scientific
> >studies, explosives, demolition, etc???
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
>   And that is one of the stupidest things ever written
> about events that have been photographed,  and those
> photographs and videos have already been analysed
> by experts.  Are you trying to say that one needs a
> colledge education and degrees to read...  say a James
> Bond novel?  Or a Carl Sagan essay?  Hmmmm....
> You have a very strange view of how the world works.

Analyzed by which experts? One needs a limited experience to be told
what to think. One need an andvanced level to know. Let me guess, you
believed that "Pull it" is a demo term to mean the demolition of a
building with explosives becuase you have no experience in such
things. Correct? What about the way camera have a limited resolution
and the pictures and video do not an infinite resolution? Maybe you
can tell that the debris ield can be calculated by just knowing how to
add single digit numbers?

I can see why you would think it was "stupid", yet in the context, you
are provng my point.

> Obwon


Al Dykes
2008-06-05 17:55:57 EST
In article <o86g44dnjv75f1pqn0e8g5ou5nfbcrt0g4@4ax.com>,
<*n@real.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:43:34 -0700 (PDT), SHOOTER586
><shooter586@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 4, 8:39\ufffdam, Ob...@real.com wrote:
>>
>>> \ufffdThere have elapsed many years since the
>>> attacks occured, \ufffdthus there is much "new
>>> evidence", \ufffd"uncovered". \ufffd This has to be
>>> suspect! \ufffd
>>
>>Actually, not much more factual information has come out. Mostly
>>opinions from non-experts.
>
> There are loads of "mis-information" sites with
>doctored photos and doctored docs out there now


And they all have names like "we are change", and "truth" in the names.

Here are videos, some audio and a picture from the "Truth Movement"
that are shown to be doctored by the associated description.



[1] -------------------------------

Rick Siegel, the person that shot video of the WTC collapse
from Hoboken, 2 miles away, shows his original video and
compares it to the the versions used in two "Truth Movement"
conspiracy videos; "9/11 Eyewitness" by James Brewster and
"9/11 Mysteries" by Sophia Shafquat.

Siegel shows that the "explosions" heard on 9/11 Mysteries and
9/11 Eyewitness are, in fact, not on his the original tape.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jir7yWTroN8

Brewster & Shafquat claim the sounds are evidence of man-made
explosives at WTC. Someone manipulated the sound track to make
those noises.

Of the dozens of video tapes we have from WTC on 9/11, there are
no recordings that show explosions that sound like man-made
blasts and are loud enough and timed to be consistent with any
building collapse. The 1993 bombing, equal to 1,000 bounds of TNT
and loud enough to be heard throughout the WTC complex and for
blocks around, was not large enough to do any structural damage to
the WTC tower it was under.

WTC on 9/11 was probably the most-witnessed disaster in history.
For more information about all the imagery we have for it read the
book, "Watching The world change; The Stories behind the images
of 9/11" by David Friend

For more information about fact-based 9/11, go to
http://911mysteriesguide.com/
and
911myths.com


[2] ----------------------------------------------


Tape recording of a meeting in progress that captured sounds of the impact
and is part of the audio archive of 9/11 has been manibolated in Loose Change.


Discussion and befre/after examples here"

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3192757#post3192757

[3] -----------------------------------


17 second clip of firemen at a pay phone apparently reacting to an
explosion is shown to have "explsions" added to the sound track.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I

As shown in tis video, athat clip was shot by Lucia Davis and it was
on Chambers St (I know the area) Chambers St. is about half a mile from WTC and
if teh blast was this large at Chambers, it would have broken eardrums
all over lower manhattan.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DpAHh-yT25Q&feature=related


News camcorder mics are mono as general practice. There just isn't
any percentage in having a stereo mic as you'd tie-up two tape tracks
for production quality that would virtually never be used.

No, youtube doesn't change the audio settings (and couldn't make
stereo out of a mono signal). Listening to that clip, the
"explosion" is inconsistent with any of the other audio in that
clip. As presented, the whole clip's in mono but the "explosion" by
virtue of its presence and general sound quality is inconsistent
with any of the other sync audio. That's a polite way of saying the
"explosion" audio wasn't recorded by the microphone that was
recording the guys in the clip. That waves a big red flag of FAIL
insofar as this being an actual, unmodified clip from the day. This
is a clear fake and on the 'evidence' of this clip alone, it isn't
incumbent on anybody else to waste time digging for the original to
additionally prove otherwise.


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3269130#post3269130

Without attribution, someone claims it cones from this
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0322733/


[4] -----------------------------------------------

The signs have been photoshopped. I was at this march. I saw no "Truth
Movement" signs.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/55281377@N00/102925932

http://www.dhadm.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/war-protest.jpg


[5] -----------


WTC collapse - the noise is fake becuase it's in sync with the motion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LUZcJrkLNI



--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail


O*@real.com
2008-06-06 13:07:04 EST
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 10:40:25 -0700 (PDT), Iarnrod
<*d@yahoo.com> wrote:

>*.@real.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:43:34 -0700 (PDT), SHOOTER586
>> <shooter586@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jun 4, 8:39?am, Ob...@real.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> ?There have elapsed many years since the
>> >> attacks occured, ?thus there is much "new
>> >> evidence", ?"uncovered". ? This has to be
>> >> suspect! ?
>> >
>> >Actually, not much more factual information has come out. Mostly
>> >opinions from non-experts.
>>
>> There are loads of "mis-information" sites with
>> doctored photos and doctored docs out there now
>> that weren't around before.
>
>Uh, that’s what Shooter just said. That not much more actual real
>factual information has come out, contrary to your claim. Now you’re
>agreeing with it.
>

Your poor reading, thinking and comprehension
skills allow all of the sense of what I have said to
escape you!

There has been loads of new information that
has come out since they've tried to deny the
American people a good, close and critical look
into how and why 9-11 happened and what was
going on around it that is relavent. For example,
most people were not aware of just how many
exercises -- planned for just such an event as this one --
were in progress at that very time.

We now know much more about Atta, and the
supposed skyjackers -- including the fact that
there could only have been 9, if that many --
and we've enough information to now conclude
that the "calls from the planes" was totally bogus.

In any event, you have just displayed a level of
ignorance that should preclude you from argueing
these matters.


O*@real.com
2008-06-06 13:16:10 EST
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 14:06:10 -0700 (PDT), SHOOTER586
<*6@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jun 5, 10:08 am, Ob...@real.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:43:34 -0700 (PDT), SHOOTER586
>>
>> <shooter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Jun 4, 8:39 am, Ob...@real.com wrote:
>>
>> >>  There have elapsed many years since the
>> >> attacks occured,  thus there is much "new
>> >> evidence",  "uncovered".   This has to be
>> >> suspect!  
>>
>> >Actually, not much more factual information has come out. Mostly
>> >opinions from non-experts.
>>
>>   There are loads of "mis-information" sites with
>> doctored photos and doctored docs out there now
>> that weren't around before.  Every day brings a host
>> of new ones,  attempting to provide new explainations
>> for things people have noticed that demand answers.
>>
>> >> Relying only upon what was released back
>> >> then,  contemporary with the attacks,  we note
>> >> that neither fireball was distorted by falling
>> >> debris of plane parts that HAD to be there
>> >> if the damage was done by planes and not
>> >> merely explosives inside the buildings.
>>
>> >Looking at the fireballs, they looked just like they would based on
>> >the information we have. Unless you have advanced training on such
>> >things, you's be hard pressed to provide any clues to how they
>> >appeared any different.
>>
>> You need advanced training to know that if a
>> 100 ton jet is moving behind it --  as it crashes
>> through two walls --  that there should be solid
>> debris, falling through it?   C'mon!  
>
>Based on the previous claim, yes. Based onhow you worded it, no.

Hardly! Apparently you're living in the 18th century!

>> >> How could a plane go through the south tower,
>> >> enter through the south side and exit through
>> >> the east side,  and not push furniture and other
>> >> debris -- with a higher "terminal velocity" than
>> >> buring fuel falling through the air -- out the exit
>> >> hole?  Any such solid debris would,  necessarily
>> >> fall faster than the burning fuel,  and thus be
>> >> highly visible as it trailed smoke and flames behind it.
>>
>> >The size of teh debris would be too small to be visible from any of
>> >teh camera angles. TRying to invent what it should ahve looked like is
>> >impossible since you have no basis to which you can gain any opinion
>> >from.
>>
>>   Hmmm...   Would you mind stating how you
>> know that the debris would be too small to be
>> visible from any of the camera angles?  Pilots
>> have written that 100 ton crafts have large debris
>> parts when they crash.  That is,  jets break into
>> rather large peices when they crash.  
>
>Simple resolution of the video. Can you tell me how many of these
>pilots that have seen plane/building impacts to make such a statement?
>Jets only break into large pieces on some crashes and cetainly not
>all. I am not one to make assumptions or generalities on such things.
>
Hahaha... How utterly foolish! I don't have tell you,
you are the one making assertions that what I presented
is false! Clue: Anyone can simply assert that anything
at all is false! What you need to do, if you're so
interested, is find someway to demonstrate what
I've said is false! I can easily demonstrate what
you and your cohort are saying is false! I don't have
to bother because it's widely accepted that you and
your buddie are making claims that can't be borne out
by the evidence.

BTW, you seem to think you can find pictures of
planes that crashed, that did not break up into large
pieces? Go ahead, post a link for us, to a picture
of a commercial jetliner that crashed, and which
broke into peices no bigger than a hand! We'll wait.

I've taken the liberty of snipping the rest! Since you
won't be able to prove that crashed jet liners can
break into so many peices so small that the entire
aircraft seems to totally disappear, the rest of your
speculations/assertions are nothing more than time
wasting drivel.

Carry on! (without me, unless you have some
proof of your claims.)

Al Dykes
2008-06-06 13:34:02 EST
In article <p9ri445h5nqis1luh885i9jdo0jfrnf8ev@4ax.com>,
<*n@real.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 10:40:25 -0700 (PDT), Iarnrod
><iarnrod@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Ob...@real.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:43:34 -0700 (PDT), SHOOTER586
>>> <shooter586@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Jun 4, 8:39?am, Ob...@real.com wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> ?There have elapsed many years since the
>>> >> attacks occured, ?thus there is much "new
>>> >> evidence", ?"uncovered". ? This has to be
>>> >> suspect! ?
>>> >
>>> >Actually, not much more factual information has come out. Mostly
>>> >opinions from non-experts.
>>>
>>> There are loads of "mis-information" sites with
>>> doctored photos and doctored docs out there now
>>> that weren't around before.
>>
>>Uh, that\ufffds what Shooter just said. That not much more actual real
>>factual information has come out, contrary to your claim. Now you\ufffdre
>>agreeing with it.
>>
>
> Your poor reading, thinking and comprehension
>skills allow all of the sense of what I have said to
>escape you!
>
>There has been loads of new information that
>has come out since they've tried to deny the
>American people a good, close and critical look
>into how and why 9-11 happened and what was
>going on around it that is relavent. For example,
>most people were not aware of just how many
>exercises -- planned for just such an event as this one --
>were in progress at that very time.



So what?

The exercises didn't take away any planes or pilots on quick alert on
9/11.


--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron